Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
This article seems to make sense. Thoughts?
geneticexpectations
Posts: 146 Member
Replies
-
I'm part way through it. It's not making sense to me yet. It's getting close to woo.1
-
It's all woo now.
The fact that protein has a 30% TEF does not prove that CICO is crap. It just proves that KETO allows people to maintain their weight by consuming more calories than their NEAT requires. However, if a KETO person consumes 4000 calories of protein in a day they still only lose 1200 of them through TEF and the 2800 remaining is probably going to be part of an excess calorie day, once their miniscule carbs and large fat are added.
Polemics is not data, and you will do well to resist polemics.0 -
Paul is a legitimate strength athlete, bodybuilder and has been training people for years now (including managing their diets) and getting very good results. The man knows his *kitten*, and even he admits that IIFYM works fine for people who have the patience to weigh and micromanage their food intake.
The point of that article is that some have taken it way too far, and do end up neglecting their overall nutrition in the realm of micros, fat type ratios, etc.5 -
Firstly, colored font on black background is hell on my eyes, so I had a lot of difficulty reading the article.
Secondly, the writer repeated confuses the unit of energy calorie with food calorie.
"Roughly 80% of your immune system is contained in the digestive tract and efficient nutrient absorption starts in the gut too. But if that's not exciting enough for you, realize that the microbes in your gut play a big role when it comes to cravings. If you eat healthier food, you feed the bacteria that makes you crave healthier food, which will make it easier to stick to a diet.
But keep the junk in your diet and you feed the bad gut bacteria that increases cravings. Gut bacteria doesn't give a *kitten* if it fits your macros."
Okay, dude, whatever.5 -
Ironic article intro sentence is ironic.
3 -
Firstly, colored font on black background is hell on my eyes, so I had a lot of difficulty reading the article.
Secondly, the writer repeated confuses the unit of energy calorie with food calorie.
"Roughly 80% of your immune system is contained in the digestive tract and efficient nutrient absorption starts in the gut too. But if that's not exciting enough for you, realize that the microbes in your gut play a big role when it comes to cravings. If you eat healthier food, you feed the bacteria that makes you crave healthier food, which will make it easier to stick to a diet.
But keep the junk in your diet and you feed the bad gut bacteria that increases cravings. Gut bacteria doesn't give a *kitten* if it fits your macros."
Okay, dude, whatever.
While he is painting with too broad a brush, this is a thing.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4303825/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4228144/0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Paul is a legitimate strength athlete, bodybuilder and has been training people for years now (including managing their diets) and getting very good results. The man knows his *kitten*, and even he admits that IIFYM works fine for people who have the patience to weigh and micromanage their food intake.
The point of that article is that some have taken it way too far, and do end up neglecting their overall nutrition in the realm of micros, fat type ratios, etc.
Yes, and? Didn't he go a bit too far in saying that a calorie isn't a calorie and slamming IIFYM? Why surrender the concept to people who misconstrue it? I get that you respect the guy, and I get that articles on the internet need to be a bit in your face, but it was a nonsense piece.2 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Firstly, colored font on black background is hell on my eyes, so I had a lot of difficulty reading the article.
Secondly, the writer repeated confuses the unit of energy calorie with food calorie.
"Roughly 80% of your immune system is contained in the digestive tract and efficient nutrient absorption starts in the gut too. But if that's not exciting enough for you, realize that the microbes in your gut play a big role when it comes to cravings. If you eat healthier food, you feed the bacteria that makes you crave healthier food, which will make it easier to stick to a diet.
But keep the junk in your diet and you feed the bad gut bacteria that increases cravings. Gut bacteria doesn't give a *kitten* if it fits your macros."
Okay, dude, whatever.
While he is painting with too broad a brush, this is a thing.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4303825/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4228144/
I'm not too up on the whole gut biome thing, but just throwing this out there... won't the diet as a whole make up the biome? It seems to me that some junk food in an otherwise nutritious diet won't matter on balance, even reading through those studies.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Paul is a legitimate strength athlete, bodybuilder and has been training people for years now (including managing their diets) and getting very good results. The man knows his *kitten*, and even he admits that IIFYM works fine for people who have the patience to weigh and micromanage their food intake.
The point of that article is that some have taken it way too far, and do end up neglecting their overall nutrition in the realm of micros, fat type ratios, etc.
Yes, and? Didn't he go a bit too far in saying that a calorie isn't a calorie and slamming IIFYM? Why surrender the concept to people who misconstrue it?
Rant against the obvious, so to speak. Keep in mind T-Nation's target audience. Hint: it isn't people who are just looking to be "normal" or "healthy". It's aimed at strength athletes and bodybuilders only. He's also written things slamming the fat acceptance movement because of the loudest advocates (the bad kind that no one can seem to make shut up).
Unless one really went digging into either subject, they would just appear from the outside as people who advocate losing weight on Oreos, and people who want the whole world population to take up three airplane seats each. That's obviously not factually correct, but it's what loud extremists tend to do to movements.
Does it excuse the misunderstanding? No, but it definitely makes it a bit more forgivable.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Firstly, colored font on black background is hell on my eyes, so I had a lot of difficulty reading the article.
Secondly, the writer repeated confuses the unit of energy calorie with food calorie.
"Roughly 80% of your immune system is contained in the digestive tract and efficient nutrient absorption starts in the gut too. But if that's not exciting enough for you, realize that the microbes in your gut play a big role when it comes to cravings. If you eat healthier food, you feed the bacteria that makes you crave healthier food, which will make it easier to stick to a diet.
But keep the junk in your diet and you feed the bad gut bacteria that increases cravings. Gut bacteria doesn't give a *kitten* if it fits your macros."
Okay, dude, whatever.
While he is painting with too broad a brush, this is a thing.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4303825/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4228144/
I'm not too up on the whole gut biome thing, but just throwing this out there... won't the diet as a whole make up the biome? It seems to me that some junk food in an otherwise nutritious diet won't matter on balance, even reading through those studies.
Correct. It appears to be mostly based on ratios and species competition. For example, if you alteady have a healthy biome, probiotics probably won't do much for you. However, if you're transitioning from SAD to a more healthful diet, they can help by essentially killing off the undesirables by overwhelming them with numbers in the process of starving them out.
Again, that article was a lashout against the people who take IIFYM to stupid extremes, so they wouldn't have the balanced diet you speak of anyway.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Firstly, colored font on black background is hell on my eyes, so I had a lot of difficulty reading the article.
Secondly, the writer repeated confuses the unit of energy calorie with food calorie.
"Roughly 80% of your immune system is contained in the digestive tract and efficient nutrient absorption starts in the gut too. But if that's not exciting enough for you, realize that the microbes in your gut play a big role when it comes to cravings. If you eat healthier food, you feed the bacteria that makes you crave healthier food, which will make it easier to stick to a diet.
But keep the junk in your diet and you feed the bad gut bacteria that increases cravings. Gut bacteria doesn't give a *kitten* if it fits your macros."
Okay, dude, whatever.
While he is painting with too broad a brush, this is a thing.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4303825/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4228144/
I'm not too up on the whole gut biome thing, but just throwing this out there... won't the diet as a whole make up the biome? It seems to me that some junk food in an otherwise nutritious diet won't matter on balance, even reading through those studies.
The biome both responds to the food you eat and influences the food choices you make. It's worth your time to study up on the complex interactions between your mind and your biome.
0 -
This reads like an army of strawmen, regardless of the athleticism of the writer. The vocal minority is not representative of the majority, and even then it's a case of "do what I do not what I say". The vocal people are vocal about their junk food consumption as contrast to the "clean eating" crowd. They definitely don't live on twinkies unless they're trying to prove a point or get youtube views.
TEF does not make that much of a difference within normal intake, unless you were eating miniscule amounts then raised your protein intake 10 fold. I have yet to see anyone who follows IFFYM and replaces fish with jelly beans. That would, by definition, break their macro balance.
The way he paints a calorie counting individual made me roll my eyes several times. Some can get obsessive, but it's not always the bad kind of obsession. There is a difference between being obsessed out of interest and being obsessed out of anxiety. Athletes are the last to say anything about obsession.
Side note:Have you ever met a person who said they just couldn't stop eating plain baked potatoes, broccoli, oats, beans, or even rice? Most likely not.
Then you might not have met enough people. I'm someone who used to eat 3 cups of rice in one meal and then sneak in a few extra spoonfuls every time I passed by the kitchen until the pot was empty. All the items mentioned above I have to consciously moderate because I love them and I could overeat them just like any other items I love. In fact, plain baked potatoes with just a bit of salt are pepper have always been one of my favorite ways to eat potatoes (though it's not 5 large at a time now like it used to be).7 -
I find it sincerely difficult to respect nutrition advice from someone who repeatedly references food as "crap" and uses language like "sorta."4
-
I thing at a high level it's fine. To me, he's saying IIFYM is a valid concept/method but you have pay attention to the composition of the macros being consumed.
I would say the people who post on this forum are a small minority of the people that actually use the site. I would also say, since they are actually posting, they have a higher level of interest regarding the ins and outs of diet/weight control. With this said, I have seen a fair number of posts where someone thumps their chest about eating some high calorie, nutritionally sparse food and it fits their macros. Yet, if you look at their food log (and you don't count french fries), they haven't had a serving of fruits or vegetables for a week.
That is what he's saying is the challenge with IIFYM.1 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Firstly, colored font on black background is hell on my eyes, so I had a lot of difficulty reading the article.
Secondly, the writer repeated confuses the unit of energy calorie with food calorie.
"Roughly 80% of your immune system is contained in the digestive tract and efficient nutrient absorption starts in the gut too. But if that's not exciting enough for you, realize that the microbes in your gut play a big role when it comes to cravings. If you eat healthier food, you feed the bacteria that makes you crave healthier food, which will make it easier to stick to a diet.
But keep the junk in your diet and you feed the bad gut bacteria that increases cravings. Gut bacteria doesn't give a *kitten* if it fits your macros."
Okay, dude, whatever.
While he is painting with too broad a brush, this is a thing.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4303825/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4228144/
I'm not too up on the whole gut biome thing, but just throwing this out there... won't the diet as a whole make up the biome? It seems to me that some junk food in an otherwise nutritious diet won't matter on balance, even reading through those studies.
The biome both responds to the food you eat and influences the food choices you make. It's worth your time to study up on the complex interactions between your mind and your biome.
I kept meaning to do this during the past year of hell I spent with a wrecked biome in the aftermath of a dose of antibiotics. Probiotics did nothing.
Being on a TNF inhibitor means that antibiotics are likely in my future again at some point too.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Paul is a legitimate strength athlete, bodybuilder and has been training people for years now (including managing their diets) and getting very good results. The man knows his *kitten*, and even he admits that IIFYM works fine for people who have the patience to weigh and micromanage their food intake.
The point of that article is that some have taken it way too far, and do end up neglecting their overall nutrition in the realm of micros, fat type ratios, etc.
Yes, and? Didn't he go a bit too far in saying that a calorie isn't a calorie and slamming IIFYM? Why surrender the concept to people who misconstrue it?
Rant against the obvious, so to speak. Keep in mind T-Nation's target audience. Hint: it isn't people who are just looking to be "normal" or "healthy". It's aimed at strength athletes and bodybuilders only. He's also written things slamming the fat acceptance movement because of the loudest advocates (the bad kind that no one can seem to make shut up).
Unless one really went digging into either subject, they would just appear from the outside as people who advocate losing weight on Oreos, and people who want the whole world population to take up three airplane seats each. That's obviously not factually correct, but it's what loud extremists tend to do to movements.
Does it excuse the misunderstanding? No, but it definitely makes it a bit more forgivable.
Yeah, I did cringe a little when I saw T-Nation in the link. I was surprised that the OP used it as a source, tbh. I'd expect something a bit more scientific from him given that he's a physician.
Fair point about extremists.2 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »This reads like an army of strawmen, regardless of the athleticism of the writer. The vocal minority is not representative of the majority, and even then it's a case of "do what I do not what I say". The vocal people are vocal about their junk food consumption as contrast to the "clean eating" crowd. They definitely don't live on twinkies unless they're trying to prove a point or get youtube views.
TEF does not make that much of a difference within normal intake, unless you were eating miniscule amounts then raised your protein intake 10 fold. I have yet to see anyone who follows IFFYM and replaces fish with jelly beans. That would, by definition, break their macro balance.
The way he paints a calorie counting individual made me roll my eyes several times. Some can get obsessive, but it's not always the bad kind of obsession. There is a difference between being obsessed out of interest and being obsessed out of anxiety. Athletes are the last to say anything about obsession.
Side note:Have you ever met a person who said they just couldn't stop eating plain baked potatoes, broccoli, oats, beans, or even rice? Most likely not.
Then you might not have met enough people. I'm someone who used to eat 3 cups of rice in one meal and then sneak in a few extra spoonfuls every time I passed by the kitchen until the pot was empty. All the items mentioned above I have to consciously moderate because I love them and I could overeat them just like any other items I love. In fact, plain baked potatoes with just a bit of salt are pepper have always been one of my favorite ways to eat potatoes (though it's not 5 large at a time now like it used to be).
I could make a valiant attempt at eating my weight in potatoes if given the chance. I don't even need salt on them. Bake the suckers and I'd just eat them out of hand like you do an apple.
1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »This reads like an army of strawmen, regardless of the athleticism of the writer. The vocal minority is not representative of the majority, and even then it's a case of "do what I do not what I say". The vocal people are vocal about their junk food consumption as contrast to the "clean eating" crowd. They definitely don't live on twinkies unless they're trying to prove a point or get youtube views.
TEF does not make that much of a difference within normal intake, unless you were eating miniscule amounts then raised your protein intake 10 fold. I have yet to see anyone who follows IFFYM and replaces fish with jelly beans. That would, by definition, break their macro balance.
The way he paints a calorie counting individual made me roll my eyes several times. Some can get obsessive, but it's not always the bad kind of obsession. There is a difference between being obsessed out of interest and being obsessed out of anxiety. Athletes are the last to say anything about obsession.
Side note:Have you ever met a person who said they just couldn't stop eating plain baked potatoes, broccoli, oats, beans, or even rice? Most likely not.
Then you might not have met enough people. I'm someone who used to eat 3 cups of rice in one meal and then sneak in a few extra spoonfuls every time I passed by the kitchen until the pot was empty. All the items mentioned above I have to consciously moderate because I love them and I could overeat them just like any other items I love. In fact, plain baked potatoes with just a bit of salt are pepper have always been one of my favorite ways to eat potatoes (though it's not 5 large at a time now like it used to be).
I could make a valiant attempt at eating my weight in potatoes if given the chance. I don't even need salt on them. Bake the suckers and I'd just eat them out of hand like you do an apple.
Have done this. Baked, cooled to warm, eaten like a sammich straight from my hand.2 -
VintageFeline wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »This reads like an army of strawmen, regardless of the athleticism of the writer. The vocal minority is not representative of the majority, and even then it's a case of "do what I do not what I say". The vocal people are vocal about their junk food consumption as contrast to the "clean eating" crowd. They definitely don't live on twinkies unless they're trying to prove a point or get youtube views.
TEF does not make that much of a difference within normal intake, unless you were eating miniscule amounts then raised your protein intake 10 fold. I have yet to see anyone who follows IFFYM and replaces fish with jelly beans. That would, by definition, break their macro balance.
The way he paints a calorie counting individual made me roll my eyes several times. Some can get obsessive, but it's not always the bad kind of obsession. There is a difference between being obsessed out of interest and being obsessed out of anxiety. Athletes are the last to say anything about obsession.
Side note:Have you ever met a person who said they just couldn't stop eating plain baked potatoes, broccoli, oats, beans, or even rice? Most likely not.
Then you might not have met enough people. I'm someone who used to eat 3 cups of rice in one meal and then sneak in a few extra spoonfuls every time I passed by the kitchen until the pot was empty. All the items mentioned above I have to consciously moderate because I love them and I could overeat them just like any other items I love. In fact, plain baked potatoes with just a bit of salt are pepper have always been one of my favorite ways to eat potatoes (though it's not 5 large at a time now like it used to be).
I could make a valiant attempt at eating my weight in potatoes if given the chance. I don't even need salt on them. Bake the suckers and I'd just eat them out of hand like you do an apple.
Have done this. Baked, cooled to warm, eaten like a sammich straight from my hand.
It's actually how I do my night before carbloads for days when I lift at 2:00am. Red potatoes and sweet potatoes are my drugs of choice, and I eat both exactly the way quoted.
ETA: he did go too far by mentioning starches. One of his original quotes on the matter from his personal blog was something like "I've never met an obese person who got that way because their broccoli and cauliflower portions were out of control".
Rice and potatoes on the other hand...yeah, I know a few.1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »This reads like an army of strawmen, regardless of the athleticism of the writer. The vocal minority is not representative of the majority, and even then it's a case of "do what I do not what I say". The vocal people are vocal about their junk food consumption as contrast to the "clean eating" crowd. They definitely don't live on twinkies unless they're trying to prove a point or get youtube views.
TEF does not make that much of a difference within normal intake, unless you were eating miniscule amounts then raised your protein intake 10 fold. I have yet to see anyone who follows IFFYM and replaces fish with jelly beans. That would, by definition, break their macro balance.
The way he paints a calorie counting individual made me roll my eyes several times. Some can get obsessive, but it's not always the bad kind of obsession. There is a difference between being obsessed out of interest and being obsessed out of anxiety. Athletes are the last to say anything about obsession.
Side note:Have you ever met a person who said they just couldn't stop eating plain baked potatoes, broccoli, oats, beans, or even rice? Most likely not.
Then you might not have met enough people. I'm someone who used to eat 3 cups of rice in one meal and then sneak in a few extra spoonfuls every time I passed by the kitchen until the pot was empty. All the items mentioned above I have to consciously moderate because I love them and I could overeat them just like any other items I love. In fact, plain baked potatoes with just a bit of salt are pepper have always been one of my favorite ways to eat potatoes (though it's not 5 large at a time now like it used to be).
I could make a valiant attempt at eating my weight in potatoes if given the chance. I don't even need salt on them. Bake the suckers and I'd just eat them out of hand like you do an apple.
Have done this. Baked, cooled to warm, eaten like a sammich straight from my hand.
It's actually how I do my night before carbloads for days when I lift at 2:00am. Red potatoes and sweet potatoes are my drugs of choice, and I eat both exactly the way quoted.
ETA: he did go too far by mentioning starches. One of his original quotes on the matter from his personal blog was something like "I've never met an obese person who got that way because their broccoli and cauliflower portions were out of control".
Rice and potatoes on the other hand...yeah, I know a few.
Yep. My broccoli and cauliflower portions WERE out of control, but so were my portions of everything else. The only saving grace of broccoli and cauliflower is that they are not calorie dense, so you can have out of control portions even when dieting without problems (unless they're smothered in tahini sauce... then you have a big problem... ok.. now I'm sad.)0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »This reads like an army of strawmen, regardless of the athleticism of the writer. The vocal minority is not representative of the majority, and even then it's a case of "do what I do not what I say". The vocal people are vocal about their junk food consumption as contrast to the "clean eating" crowd. They definitely don't live on twinkies unless they're trying to prove a point or get youtube views.
TEF does not make that much of a difference within normal intake, unless you were eating miniscule amounts then raised your protein intake 10 fold. I have yet to see anyone who follows IFFYM and replaces fish with jelly beans. That would, by definition, break their macro balance.
The way he paints a calorie counting individual made me roll my eyes several times. Some can get obsessive, but it's not always the bad kind of obsession. There is a difference between being obsessed out of interest and being obsessed out of anxiety. Athletes are the last to say anything about obsession.
Side note:Have you ever met a person who said they just couldn't stop eating plain baked potatoes, broccoli, oats, beans, or even rice? Most likely not.
Then you might not have met enough people. I'm someone who used to eat 3 cups of rice in one meal and then sneak in a few extra spoonfuls every time I passed by the kitchen until the pot was empty. All the items mentioned above I have to consciously moderate because I love them and I could overeat them just like any other items I love. In fact, plain baked potatoes with just a bit of salt are pepper have always been one of my favorite ways to eat potatoes (though it's not 5 large at a time now like it used to be).
I could make a valiant attempt at eating my weight in potatoes if given the chance. I don't even need salt on them. Bake the suckers and I'd just eat them out of hand like you do an apple.
Have done this. Baked, cooled to warm, eaten like a sammich straight from my hand.
It's actually how I do my night before carbloads for days when I lift at 2:00am. Red potatoes and sweet potatoes are my drugs of choice, and I eat both exactly the way quoted.
ETA: he did go too far by mentioning starches. One of his original quotes on the matter from his personal blog was something like "I've never met an obese person who got that way because their broccoli and cauliflower portions were out of control".
Rice and potatoes on the other hand...yeah, I know a few.
I could make a solid effort with steamed broccoli. My husband might divorce me and I'd probably become airborne at some point afterwards, though.2 -
This content has been removed.
-
You're missing the point. I'm willing to bet that in the grand scheme of your diet, that broccoli accounted for less than 5% of your caloric intake. In a diet involving whole packs of hotdogs and bottles of salad dressings, 135 kcals from a pound of cauliflower isn't exactly your biggest problem.1
-
This content has been removed.
-
Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »No, i never said it was, i was saying that my biggest problem was calorie surplus from EVERYTHING.. but i cant just point the finger at one food over the other just because one has a different calorie density.. if i still had an eating disorder and lived on an island made of cauliflower, i would of probably still ate myself into obesity with it.
It's possible, but I honestly believe you'd end up physically damaging yourself internally, or inadvertently becoming bulimic first.
I'm actually considering taking this as a personal challenge on the last week of my bulk. Since my current caloric requirements for gaining are north of 4500 kcals on a really active day, it would be an interesting experiment in self-induced food misery. Granted, I'd still feel compelled to supplement with protein powders, because screw single source veg proteins.
It'll probably also make me look forward to my cut that starts the following week, even more.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »You're missing the point. I'm willing to bet that in the grand scheme of your diet, that broccoli accounted for less than 5% of your caloric intake. In a diet involving whole packs of hotdogs and bottles of salad dressings, 135 kcals from a pound of cauliflower isn't exactly your biggest problem.
You made me curious, so I calculated my vegetable calories today and it's 261, nearly twice that when I was morbidly obese. 500 calories has a footprint, but admittedly not as big of a footprint as the other 2500 or more I used to consume from other sources.
That's not the article's point though. It seems to imply the usual clean eating claim where it states you don't overeat "healthy foods". Like hell you don't! Otherwise I wouldn't have become obese. My diet today is very representative of my diet before except for the quantities and fat content and could be considered 94% clean (I had 2 oreos), and ironically, ice cream and chips were some of the few things I actually had in single servings both then and now.3 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »You're missing the point. I'm willing to bet that in the grand scheme of your diet, that broccoli accounted for less than 5% of your caloric intake. In a diet involving whole packs of hotdogs and bottles of salad dressings, 135 kcals from a pound of cauliflower isn't exactly your biggest problem.
You made me curious, so I calculated my vegetable calories today and it's 261, nearly twice that when I was morbidly obese. 500 calories has a footprint, but admittedly not as big of a footprint as the other 2500 or more I used to consume from other sources.
That's not the article's point though. It seems to imply the usual clean eating claim where it states you don't overeat "healthy foods". Like hell you don't! Otherwise I wouldn't have become obese. My diet today is very representative of my diet before except for the quantities and fat content and could be considered 94% clean (I had 2 oreos), and ironically, ice cream and chips were some of the few things I actually had in single servings both then and now.
Oh, absolutely. I wasn't a "got fat from candy and cookies" guy either. I quite simply overate everything that I did eat. These things included steak, potatoes, ground beef, chicken breast, pasta, bagels, fruit, etc.
As I admitted, Paul strayed a bit from his original points in his blog with this article.
However, keep in mind, once again, this is aimed at strength athletes and bodybuilders; people who generally have much higher caloric requirements than sedentary or even somewhat active people. That seems clearly stated from the outset, given his wording in the IIFYM origins section.
Also, a man getting to 12-15% BF using IIFYM is trivially easy, assuming that the person has self-control and some nutritional knowledge. However, a bodybuilder getting into contest shape trying to use it is pissing in the wind. You show me someone who cut to 4-5% eating ice cream, and I'll show you a liar, or someone with the best drug response ever. The wiggle room just isn't there in that phase. The further below 10% you get, the more ridiculous the restrictions have to become in order to keep making progress.0 -
I think IIFYM can always get taken to the extreme end where it is all Twinkies, Pop-tarts sprinkled with protein powder to hit the macros. Not the way it was intended to be at all. It was meant to have a bit of flexibility in the world of strict macro and food sources, a way to make fat loss less miserable and more adaptable for everyday life. Have a Birthday coming up? You can fit a slice of cake into your macros without the guilt of feeling like you ruined your progress, etc.
For me, my bulking diet looks a lot different than my cutting diet. Right now I have over 3000 cals to play with.. you better believe I am fitting some treats in there. However, I am not a pro-bodybuilder.. I do not compete. I would imagine though, if I was cutting at really low levels, my nutrition would be very volume and nutrient dense.. treats would be highly moderated (depending on how I was feeling and cal goals as well). I would try to get the most bang for my buck as to not feel worn down or starving the whole time.. this isn't so bad considering it would only be temporary and I would go back to eating more flexible after the competition ends.0 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Firstly, colored font on black background is hell on my eyes, so I had a lot of difficulty reading the article.
Secondly, the writer repeated confuses the unit of energy calorie with food calorie.
"Roughly 80% of your immune system is contained in the digestive tract and efficient nutrient absorption starts in the gut too. But if that's not exciting enough for you, realize that the microbes in your gut play a big role when it comes to cravings. If you eat healthier food, you feed the bacteria that makes you crave healthier food, which will make it easier to stick to a diet.
But keep the junk in your diet and you feed the bad gut bacteria that increases cravings. Gut bacteria doesn't give a *kitten* if it fits your macros."
Okay, dude, whatever.
While he is painting with too broad a brush, this is a thing.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4303825/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4228144/
I'm not too up on the whole gut biome thing, but just throwing this out there... won't the diet as a whole make up the biome? It seems to me that some junk food in an otherwise nutritious diet won't matter on balance, even reading through those studies.
The biome both responds to the food you eat and influences the food choices you make. It's worth your time to study up on the complex interactions between your mind and your biome.
It's interesting and all but it reminds me of the whole "protein burns more calories than carbs!" thing.
Technically correct, in reality completely useless because of the tiny impact it has.
There's this one poster on the forums who keeps talking about excreting calories, so I once looked up how much those differ. A 5% difference in calorie absorption between the median and the most extreme cases in both directions, caused by gut bacteria.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions